李本侹

慈城醉經(jīng)閣是曾經(jīng)的著名藏書(shū)樓。幾年前，有人發(fā)現(xiàn)一張《醉經(jīng)閣第二圖》，說(shuō)是“馮云濠的醉經(jīng)閣勝景入畫(huà)（1838）圖”，此后一直被引用，筆者很想談些看法。

一，關(guān)于此圖的來(lái)歷。據(jù)了解，此圖最早出現(xiàn)在2007年12月的上海道明秋拍中，拍品號(hào)0557。拍賣(mài)公司的介紹中，將“醉經(jīng)閣”認(rèn)定為慈城的馮云濠醉經(jīng)閣。后來(lái)，此圖又出現(xiàn)在2009年12月的西泠拍賣(mài)、2010年5月的北京嘉德拍賣(mài)和2015年5月的上海道明拍賣(mài)。

二，此圖中的相關(guān)信息。此圖由兩部分組成，前段引首隸書(shū)“醉經(jīng)閣第二圖”，落款“少峰一兄屬，朱為弼”。后段為一幅國(guó)畫(huà)，其中左上角有一段詩(shī)文，后面落款是“少峰一兄屬寫(xiě)醉經(jīng)閣第二圖，戊戌七月，錢(qián)杜記”。很明顯，此圖畫(huà)的是“少峰”的“醉經(jīng)閣”景色。

三，馮云濠是否為少峰？據(jù)對(duì)慈城地方文史有深入研究的張介人先生考證，馮云濠的父親馮天佑生有四個(gè)兒子，老大馮云錦，老二馮云濠，老三馮謁鏞，老四馮云標(biāo)。馮云濠，字文濬，號(hào)五橋，在慈城有自己的藏書(shū)樓，稱(chēng)醉經(jīng)閣。馮云濠既不是家中老大，人家自然不會(huì)叫他“一兄”；“少峰”也不是字或號(hào)，可以說(shuō)，“馮云濠”和“少峰”半毛錢(qián)關(guān)系也沒(méi)有。

四，少峰是誰(shuí)？柯愈春所著《清人詩(shī)文集總目提要》1373頁(yè)，提到有《醉經(jīng)閣詩(shī)抄》四卷，蔡錫恭所撰。殘本，今為南京圖書(shū)館所藏?！度莞龑W(xué)術(shù)著作全集》第200冊(cè)1122頁(yè)有“蔡錫恭，字少峰，浙江石門(mén)人。官江蘇震澤巡檢，著醉經(jīng)閣金石考”的記載。石門(mén)即今桐鄉(xiāng)。劉黎平《紫砂壺典》426頁(yè)有“蔡錫恭（約1771—1829），字少峰”的記載，但據(jù)《盛澤鎮(zhèn)志》75頁(yè)的《清代吳江縣丞更迭表》中有“蔡錫恭，浙江石門(mén)，同治八年（1869）脫字”的記載，由此對(duì)照，《紫砂壺典》里寫(xiě)的蔡錫恭生卒年份不一定準(zhǔn)確。圖中引首落款“戊戌（1838）七月”，如此，蔡錫恭才可以和此圖在時(shí)間上有交集。

五，朱為弼和錢(qián)杜。這二人一個(gè)寫(xiě)字，一個(gè)作畫(huà)。朱為弼（1770—1840），平湖人。錢(qián)杜（1764—1845），杭州人。至此，已經(jīng)很明了，筆者不用再去考證他們與蔡錫恭是否有交集了。

綜上所述，可以認(rèn)定，此圖畫(huà)的是石門(mén)蔡錫恭家的醉經(jīng)閣，不是慈城馮云濠的醉經(jīng)閣。

（《醉經(jīng)閣第二圖》由童銀舫提供）

My Take on a Painting about Zuijingge

By Li Benting

Zuijingge in Cicheng， Ningbo in eastern Zhejiang used to be famed for the books it housed. A few years ago， an ancient painting titled “Second Painting of Zuijingge” emerged out somewhere and somebody concluded that it was painted in 1838 and it was about Zuijingge owned by Feng Yunhao.

I dont think the painting depicts Fengs Zuijingge in Cicheng.

The painting first appeared in the auction catalogue of an auction house in Shanghai in December 2007， the auction serial number being 0557. The auction house said that Zuijingge mentioned in the painting was identified as Feng Yunhaos Zuijingge in Cicheng. The painting reappeared at auctions held in Hangzhou， Beijing and Shanghai respectively in 2009， 2010， and 2015.

The painting is composed of two parts. The first part is the title inscribed in the clerical script. The title reads Second Painting of Zuijingge， signed by someone named Zhu Weibi. The inscription reads that it was inscribed at the request of the eldest brother Shaofeng. The second part is the painting in the traditional style. In the upper left corner is a poem with a brief note by someone named Qian Du. The artist explains in the note that the painting was done at the request of the eldest brother Shaofeng for Zuijingge. Judging from the texts， one can conclude that the painting obviously depicts Zuijingge owned by Shaofeng. The date on the painting was 1838.endprint

Is Shaofeng Feng Yunhao in Cicheng？ Zhang Jieren， a contemporary scholar who has conducted studies of the local history and culture of Cicheng， says that Feng Yunhao was the second of the four sons fathered by Feng Tianyou and that Feng Yunhaos library was called Zuijingge， but he was never known as Shaofeng. It can be definitely concluded that Feng Yunhao was not Shaofeng and that he had nothing to do with Shaofeng.

Then who was Shaofeng？ In page 1373 of a comprehensive dictionary cataloguing over 40，000 collections of essays and poems by 19，700 scholars of the Qing Dynasty （1644-1911） compiled by Ke Yuchun （born in 1939）， a four-volume Zuijingge Collection of Poetry by Cai Xigong is mentioned. The catalogue says that the collection is incomplete. In page 1122 of the 200th volume of the Complete Academic Works of Rong Geng （1894-1983）， the author says that Cai Xigong， with a courtesy name Shaofeng， was a native of Shimeng， Zhejiang and that Cai wrote a study named .

Zhu Weibi （1770-1840） who inscribed on the painting was a native of Pinghu whereas Qian Du， a native of Hangzhou and the painter of the artwork， was born in 1764 and passed away in 1845. Feng Yunhao （1807-1855）， the owner of Zuijingge Library in Cicheng， was much younger than Zhu Weibi and Qian Du. There is no evidence that the two had anything to do with Feng Yunhao and there was absolutely no reason why the two scholars， at least thirty years senior， would consider Feng Yunhao as an elder brother.endprint